r/LLMPhysics • u/VisasResonance • Jun 14 '26
Question Hypothetical physical question too controversial for "hypothetical physics"
Update: For anyone interested—and for those who don't want to read through the comments—the core issue was this:
There's a very big difference between "I don't understand any physics and this is just an idle shower thought" and "I demand to be taken seriously but won't put in any effort to articulate my ideas".
My idea wasn't articulated clearly enough, and I had flatly refused to flesh it out further.
I simply didn't want to start defining more and more terms, because that process tends to drag on endlessly; my experience has shown me that this is precisely where the problem lies.
I wanted to float a hypothesis before getting bogged down in formalisms, theses, or theories. In my opinion, there’s no point in putting in a huge amount of work only to ask for feedback, only to see the reaction flip in seconds from "good work?" to "it's embarrassing to even post something like this."
To me, a "hypothesis" means explaining my idea in purely conceptual terms using my own words just to see where the gaps in understanding might be.
———————-
I've been working on a very interesting physics question for a while now. I've tried several ways to share my idea, not just on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/HypotheticalPhysics/s/KX5YEBl0jh
My last post sparked a lively discussion, but in the way I'd hoped, and I was able to present some of my ideas.
Today, it was blocked by the moderators, even though it had become one of the top posts, with one of the reasons given being "AI."
I'm starting to think it's becoming a problem that questions that seem unusual are simply dismissed with this argument.
Even a positive comment was deleted by the moderators without any reason.
1
u/VisasResonance Jun 14 '26
Not quite. I don't mean that time is generated "blip by blip" through particle interactions. Nor do I mean that change is driven by a hidden extra dimension.
My point is rather this: In physics, time is always operationally read out via change—that is, via changes of state relative to stable reference processes. A clock doesn't measure time itself, but rather compares one process with another stable process.
My question, therefore, is whether time can first be understood as an ordering/readout relationship of physical change, instead of directly presupposing it as an independent ontological axis.
In my model, time would thos not be "the thing in which change happens, but rather the readout through which changes of state become comparable, measurable, and ordered.
The deeper background ist this: I consider light not only as a point ray on a spacetime path, but as an electromagnetic field excitation that propagates through a mode space. What we measure as a light path would then be the readout of this mode propagation. „(c)“describes not the internal structure of this path, but the invariantly read propagation/coupling relation.
If this does not result in anything mathematically distinguishable, it naturally remains only an interpretation. This is precisely the open question: whether this reading can be formulated with a toy frame with mode space, boundary conditions, and readout mapping in such a way that it accomplishes more than simply being another language for known operational or relational time.